DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This application is in response to Application 19/122,816 filed on 04/21/2025. Claims 1-9 are canceled. Claims 10-23 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. DE102022128276.7, filed on 10/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “determine the position of the first arm and using a human pose estimation method” is grammatically incorrect. For example “and” may be deleted such that the claim recites “determine the position of the first arm using a human pose estimation method.” Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 17, 25-27 and 31-33 of copending Application No. 19/126,029 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because,
Application 19/122,816
Copending Application 19/126,029
Claims 10 and 23: “determine, on the basis of the image data, whether an occupant intends to open a door of the vehicle”; determine…whether the occupant of the vehicle is a child or an adult”; “block an opening of the door” if the occupant is a child, or “allow the opening of the door” of the occupant is an adult.
Claims 16-17: “determine based on the image data whether an occupant actuates a central locking system of the vehicle”; “ascertain based on the image data whether the occupant…is a vulnerable person or a non-vulnerable person”; and “block the actuation of the central locking system as the child lock function” if the occupant is a vulnerable person.
Claim 11: capture “a plurality of images in succession in time”; detect a movement of the occupant on the basis of the image data”; and determine, based on the detected movement, whether the occupant “intends to open the door of the vehicle.”
Claim 25: capture “multiple chronologically successive images”; ascertain a movement of the occupant based on the image data”; and determine based on the ascertained movement whether the occupant “actuates the central locking system of the vehicle.”
Claim 12: “determine whether the vehicle is in motion” and “block the opening of the door” if the occupant is a child and the vehicle is in motion.
Claims 16-17 and 25: determine whether the occupant “actuates a central locking system”; ascertain whether the occupant is a “vulnerable person”; “block the actuation of the central locking system”; and ascertain a “movement of the occupant.”
Claim 13; “wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener.
Claims 25-27: ascertain occupant movement from successive images; determine “a position of at least one operating element of the central locking system”; ascertain “ a position of at least a first arm…and a hand position”; determine actuation if the hand position corresponds to the position” of the operating element; and store the operating element position “in a storage area of the control unit.”
Claim 14: “the position of at least a first door opener…is stored in a memory area of the control unit”; determine a position of a “first arm…and a hand position”; and determine intent to open if the “hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener.”
Claims 26-27: determine and store the position of “operating element of the central locking system”; ascertain a “first arm…and a hand position”; and determine actuation if the “hand position corresponds to the position” of the operating element.
Claim 15: “determine the position of the first arm and using a human pose estimation method.”
Claims 26 and 31: ascertain a position of at least a “first arm” and a hand position; and ascertain the “hand position based on the image data using a human pose estimation method.”
Claim 16: “determine the hand position on the basis of the image data and using a human pose estimation method.”
Claim 31: “ascertain the hand position based on the image data using a human pose estimation method.”
Claim 17: “determine whether the occupant is a child on the basis of the image data and using a machine learning method.”
Claim 32: “ascertain based on the image data using a machine learning method whether the occupant is a vulnerable person.”
Claim 18: “determine whether the vehicle is in motion” and “block the opening of the door” if the occupant is a child and the vehicle is in motion.
Claim 16-17: ascertain whether the occupant is a “vulnerable person” and “block the actuation of the central locking system as the child lock function.”
Claim 19: “capture at least one outside image containing a depiction of an area outside the vehicle”; determine “whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle”; and “block the opening of the door” if the occupant is a child and another vehicle is approaching.
Claim 16-17: ascertain whether the occupant is a “vulnerable person” based on image data and “block the actuation of the central locking system as the child lock function.”
Claim 20: a sensor of the vehicle that is configured to capture at least one outside image containing a depiction of an area outside the vehicle and to generate sensor data corresponding to the at least one outside image; and wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle.
Claim 16-17: ascertain whether the occupant is a “vulnerable person” based on image data and “block the actuation of the central locking system as the child lock function.”
Claim 21: “wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the occupant is a child on the basis of the image data and using a machine learning method.”
Claim 32: “wherein the control unit is configured to ascertain based on the image data using a machine learning method whether the occupant is a vulnerable person.
Claim 22: “wherein the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, whether the occupant intends to operate a window lifter of the vehicle, and to block the window lifter if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child.”
Claim 16-17 and 20: ascertain whether the occupant is a “vulnerable person” based on image data and execute a child lock function; claim 20 further recites the “at least one operation includes actuating a window lifter of the vehicle.”
Regarding claims 10, 11, 13-17, 21 and 23 the differences do not render the claims patentably distinct. Determining that an occupant intends to open a door rather than actuates a central locking system, identifying the protected occupant specifically as a child rather than a vulnerable person, using a door opener as the operating element, and applying human pose estimation to the recited arm/hand positions are obvious variations of the corresponding claimed subject matter of Application No. 19/126,029.
Regarding claims 12 and 18-20, Lv et al., (US 2022/0222949 A1) teaches activating a child lock during vehicle motion and in response to an approaching vehicle detected by a rear view sensor, including an image sensor. Ot would have been obvious to apply these known safety conditions to the child lock system of Application No. 19/126,029 to prevent unsafe door opening by a child.
Regarding claim 22, YANG YONG (CN108625709A) teaches images based identification of a child operating a vehicle window and restricting further window opening. It would have been obvious to apply this known child window control technique to the image based child lock system of Application No. 19/126,029.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ching-Yu Weng, US 11193312B1, hereinafter referred to Weng.
Regarding claim 10, Weng discloses an apparatus for controlling a child safety lock of a vehicle having a passenger compartment (See at least column 1, lines 5-46; page 2, line 21-page 3,line 27), comprising:
at least one image-generating system of the vehicle that is configured to capture at least one image with a depiction of an area of the passenger compartment and to generate image data corresponding to the at least one image (Weng, claim 1, reciting a capture device configured to generate pixel data corresponding to an interior view of the vehicle; See also Col. 14, lines 1-10, describing interior vehicle cameras); and
a control unit that is configured to process the image data, to determine, on the basis of the image data, whether an occupant intends to open a door of the vehicle (Weng, claim 1, reciting a processor configured to process the pixel data arranged as video frames and perform operations on the video frame. Weng, Col. 41, lines 58-65 through Col. 42, lines 1023, detecting an occupants arm moving toward a door handle and the occupants hand pulling the door handle, and determining the context/behavior associated with the detected gesture),
to determine on the basis of the image data whether the occupant of the vehicle is a child or an adult (Weng, claim 1, determining an age of the occupant from characteristics detected in the video frames; claims 3-4; see also Col. 16, lines 20-31, differentiating between a child, adolescent, young adult, adult, etc), and
to block an opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle and the occupant is a child (Weng, claims 2-3; Col. 42, lines 7-15, detecting a child pulling the door handle and determining that the child safety lock should be engaged), or to allow the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle and is an adult (Weng, claim 4, disengaging the child safety lock when the occupant is above the threshold age; Col. 42, lines 16-35, detecting an adult repeatedly attempting to pull the door handle and disengaging the child safety lock upon determining that the adult is attempting to exit/escape the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Weng discloses wherein: the image-generating system is configured to capture the at least one image as a plurality of images in succession in time with the depiction of the area of the passenger compartment and to generate the image data corresponding to the plurality of images (Weng, Col. 15, lines 54-61, analyzing a series or sequence of video frames); and
the control unit is configured to detect a movement of the occupant on the basis of the image data (Weng, Col. 15, lines 57-65, generating motion vectors to track movement of objects temporally across video frames, including direction and/or speed of movement) and
to determine, on the basis of the detected movement, whether the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle (Weng, Col. 41, lines 58-65 through Col. 42, lines 1-6, detecting an arm moving toward the door handle and a hand pulling the door handle and interpreting the detected gestures).
Regarding claim 21, Weng discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the occupant is a child on the basis of the image data and using a machine learning method (Weng Col. 8, lines 25-33, CNN module implements computer vision using deep learning techniques and pattern/image recognition. Weng, claim 1; claims 3-4; col. 41, lines 8-17, while the processor determines the age of the occupant based on characteristics detected in the video frames and determines whether the occupant is below a child age threshold).
Regarding claim 23, Weng discloses a method for controlling a child safety lock of a vehicle (See at least column 1, lines 5-46; page 2, line 21-page 3,line 27), comprising:
capturing at least one image with a depiction of an area of the passenger compartment; generating image data corresponding to the at least one image (Weng, claim 1, reciting a capture device configured to generate pixel data corresponding to an interior view of the vehicle; See also Col. 14, lines 1-10, describing interior vehicle cameras);
determining, on the basis of the image data, whether an occupant intends to open a door of the vehicle (Weng, claim 1, reciting a processor configured to process the pixel data arranged as video frames and perform operations on the video frame. Weng, Col. 41, lines 58-65 through Col. 42, lines 1023, detecting an occupants arm moving toward a door handle and the occupants hand pulling the door handle, and determining the context/behavior associated with the detected gesture);
determining, on the basis of the image data, whether the occupant of the vehicle is a child or an adult (Weng, claim 1, determining an age of the occupant from characteristics detected in the video frames; claims 3-4; see also Col. 16, lines 20-31, differentiating between a child, adolescent, young adult, adult, etc); and
blocking the opening of the door if it has been determined that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle and is a child (Weng, claims 2-3; Col. 42, lines 7-15, detecting a child pulling the door handle and determining that the child safety lock should be engaged).
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) 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching-Yu Weng, US 11193312B1, in view of Lv et al., US 20220222949A1, hereinafter referred to as Weng and Lv, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion.
However, Lv teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion (The protection operation may include activating a child lock upon receiving a signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind. When the child lock is activated, the vehicle door cannot be opened directly by a switch on the door. The signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind may come from a vehicle control center, or directly from a vehicle rear view sensor, such as a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, or an image sensor. This can protect the child from opening the vehicle door and getting out of the vehicle without seeing a vehicle coming from behind, and thus putting the child in danger. The protection operation may also include activating the child lock during driving. This can prevent the child from opening the door accidentally during the driving of the vehicle, and thus putting the child in danger – See at least ¶44).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion, as taught by Lv, in order to predictably prevent unsafe door opening by a child while the vehicle is being driven.
Regarding claim 18, Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion.
However, Lv teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion (The protection operation may include activating a child lock upon receiving a signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind. When the child lock is activated, the vehicle door cannot be opened directly by a switch on the door. The signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind may come from a vehicle control center, or directly from a vehicle rear view sensor, such as a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, or an image sensor. This can protect the child from opening the vehicle door and getting out of the vehicle without seeing a vehicle coming from behind, and thus putting the child in danger. The protection operation may also include activating the child lock during driving. This can prevent the child from opening the door accidentally during the driving of the vehicle, and thus putting the child in danger – See at least ¶44).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to determine whether the vehicle is in motion and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that the vehicle is in motion, as taught by Lv, in order to predictably prevent unsafe door opening by a child while the vehicle is being driven.
Regarding claim 19, Weng discloses a sensor of the vehicle that is configured to capture at least one outside image containing a depiction of an area outside the vehicle and to generate sensor data corresponding to the at least one outside image (Weng, Col. 14, lines 12-31, describing cameras capturing rear and front exterior views and video data of the environment surrounding the vehicle).
Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle.
However, Lv teaches wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle (The signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind may come from a vehicle control center, or directly from a vehicle rear view sensor, such as a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, or an image sensor – See at least ¶44. In the scenario where a child is protected against opening the door, the state of the child lock can be adjusted in real time depending on whether there is a vehicle coming from behind. As shown in FIG. 3, data from a vehicle rear view sensor is used to determine, in real time, whether there is a vehicle approaching from behind. If there is a vehicle approaching from behind, the child lock is activated, and it is continuously monitored whether there is a vehicle coming from behind – See at least ¶46).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle, as taught by Lv, in order to predictably prevent a child from opening the door into the path of approaching traffic.
Regarding claim 20, Weng discloses a sensor of the vehicle that is configured to capture at least one outside image containing a depiction of an area outside the vehicle and to generate sensor data corresponding to the at least one outside image (Weng, Col. 14, lines 12-31).
Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle.
However, Lv teaches wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle (The signal indicating that a vehicle is coming from behind may come from a vehicle control center, or directly from a vehicle rear view sensor, such as a millimeter-wave radar, a laser radar, or an image sensor – See at least ¶44. In the scenario where a child is protected against opening the door, the state of the child lock can be adjusted in real time depending on whether there is a vehicle coming from behind. As shown in FIG. 3, data from a vehicle rear view sensor is used to determine, in real time, whether there is a vehicle approaching from behind. If there is a vehicle approaching from behind, the child lock is activated, and it is continuously monitored whether there is a vehicle coming from behind – See at least ¶46).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to process the sensor data and to determine, on the basis of the sensor data, whether another vehicle is approaching the vehicle and to block the opening of the door if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child and that another vehicle is approaching the vehicle, as taught by Lv, in order to predictably prevent a child from opening the door into the path of approaching traffic.
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching-Yu Weng, US 11193312B1, in view of Mariusz Rychlik, US 20240101030A1, hereinafter referred to as Weng and Rychlik, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, Weng fails to disclose wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener.
However, Rychlik teaches wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener (The data related to the relative positions between the perception-based system, buckles and handles are preferably stored in a configuration file and used to estimate distances as well as estimating the positions of non-visible elements on the received set of data points – See at least ¶13 and 16. During an initial step (S1), one or several video frames of the interior of the vehicle taken by the camera are received as input data by a processor. The received video frames are processed using a body keypoint detector which assigns body keypoint positions (BKP) of detected passengers within the video frame(s). Based on the assigned BKPs in relation with a seatbelt buckle position and/or a door handle position, a manipulation score, indicative of an intention of the detected passenger(s) to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or to open a door, is computed. One preferred way to compute the manipulation score is to calculate the distance between the wrist and/or hand positions with a seatbelt buckle or a door handle in the received image; and/or to determine occlusion of a seatbelt buckle or a door handle by the wrist and/or hand positions in the image. Occluded elements can be estimated based on a configuration file including the positions of the buckles and handles as well as the position of the camera – See at least ¶35 and 43. he computed manipulation score is then compared with a predefined threshold indicative of a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt or open a door handle and therefore representative of a risk of actual manipulation of the buckle and/or the handle. If the manipulation score exceeds the predefined threshold (YES) a passenger's intention is determined and the method adjusts at least one control function of a safety system of the vehicle and/or notifies the driver of the vehicle of the passenger's intention if this is possible – See at least ¶48).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener, as taught by Rychlik, to propose a monitoring method that anticipates a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or open a door and tries to prevent it.
Regarding claim 14, Weng fails to disclose wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener.
However, Rychlik teaches wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener (The data related to the relative positions between the perception-based system, buckles and handles are preferably stored in a configuration file and used to estimate distances as well as estimating the positions of non-visible elements on the received set of data points – See at least ¶13 and 16. During an initial step (S1), one or several video frames of the interior of the vehicle taken by the camera are received as input data by a processor. The received video frames are processed using a body keypoint detector which assigns body keypoint positions (BKP) of detected passengers within the video frame(s). Based on the assigned BKPs in relation with a seatbelt buckle position and/or a door handle position, a manipulation score, indicative of an intention of the detected passenger(s) to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or to open a door, is computed. One preferred way to compute the manipulation score is to calculate the distance between the wrist and/or hand positions with a seatbelt buckle or a door handle in the received image; and/or to determine occlusion of a seatbelt buckle or a door handle by the wrist and/or hand positions in the image. Occluded elements can be estimated based on a configuration file including the positions of the buckles and handles as well as the position of the camera – See at least ¶35 and 43. he computed manipulation score is then compared with a predefined threshold indicative of a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt or open a door handle and therefore representative of a risk of actual manipulation of the buckle and/or the handle. If the manipulation score exceeds the predefined threshold (YES) a passenger's intention is determined and the method adjusts at least one control function of a safety system of the vehicle and/or notifies the driver of the vehicle of the passenger's intention if this is possible – See at least ¶48).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein: the position of at least a first door opener of the vehicle is stored in a memory area of the control unit; and the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, a position of at least a first arm of the occupant and a hand position of a hand of the first arm, and to determine that the occupant intends to open the door of the vehicle if the hand position corresponds to the position of the first door opener, as taught by Rychlik, to propose a monitoring method that anticipates a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or open a door and tries to prevent it.
Regarding claim 15, Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position of the first arm and using a human pose estimation method.
However, Rychlik teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position of the first arm and using a human pose estimation method (The body keypoint detector provides positions of specific body parts, so called body keypoint positions (BKP) such as hand and/or wrist positions. It can optionally also provide positions of other body parts such as eyes, nose, ears, neck, shoulders, elbows, or even give a pose estimation of any passenger seating within the vehicle – See at least ¶43).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position of the first arm and using a human pose estimation method, as taught by Rychlik, to propose a monitoring method that anticipates a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or open a door and tries to prevent it.
Regarding claim 16, Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine the hand position on the basis of the image data and using a human pose estimation method.
However, Rychlik teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the hand position on the basis of the image data and using a human pose estimation method (The body keypoint detector provides positions of specific body parts, so called body keypoint positions (BKP) such as hand and/or wrist positions. It can optionally also provide positions of other body parts such as eyes, nose, ears, neck, shoulders, elbows, or even give a pose estimation of any passenger seating within the vehicle – See at least ¶43).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to determine the hand position on the basis of the image data and using a human pose estimation method, as taught by Rychlik, to propose a monitoring method that anticipates a passenger's intention to unbuckle a seatbelt and/or open a door and tries to prevent it.
Regarding claim 17, Weng discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine the hand position on the basis of the image data and using a human pose estimation method (Weng, Col. 8, lines 25-33 CNN module implementing computer vision using deep learning techniques and pattern/image recognition. Weng, claim 1; Col. 41, lines 8-17, determines the occupants age from characteristics detected in the video frames to determine whether the occupant is a child).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching-Yu Weng, US 11193312B1, in view of Yang Yong, CN108625709A1, hereinafter referred to as Weng and Yong, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, Weng fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, whether the occupant intends to operate a window lifter of the vehicle, and to block the window lifter if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child.
However, Yong teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, whether the occupant intends to operate a window lifter of the vehicle, and to block the window lifter if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child (A camera device disposed inside the vehicle for capturing facial information of a person who opens the window. The first control unit controls the window to stop continuing to open when the result of the determination is that the person who opens the window is a child and the window of the comparison unit is turned on until the preset distance is equal – See Summary of Invention Paragraph, lines 1-20).
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 invention of Weng and include the feature of wherein the control unit is configured to determine, on the basis of the image data, whether the occupant intends to operate a window lifter of the vehicle, and to block the window lifter if the control unit has determined that the occupant is a child, as taught by Yong, to provide a window control system capable of detecting whether a child is present in a vehicle and recognizing the child when the child opens the window without fully opening to protect the child.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights