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 action is in reply to the response filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations or references as applied used in the current rejection.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0077]
The following part of this disclosure describes in more detail the operation of one exemplary sub-system, namely the helmet detection sub-system of the present invention. The term “helmet” is used herein to describe any head protection device that may be worn on the head of the user and can be visually discerned by its shape using a video or another type of camera. For safety regulation purposes, the driver and passenger shall wear a DOT—or another appropriate government entity-approved helmet. Satisfying a safety standard may include compliance with regulations from DOT, the United Nations Economic Commission on Europe (ECE), or other safety standards.
[0096]
The system of the invention may be pre-trained to detect approved helmets on occupants, as seen in FIGS. 11 through 13 . The computer model or a component thereof may use a pre-trained Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to categorize at least some or each occupant's image into one of the following four categories:
(i) No occupant (there is no occupant detected, while the system of the invention is trained to recognize human shape from head/torso),
(ii) An occupant is present and is wearing a non-approved headwear (e.g. hat, cap, bike helmet, skiing helmet, or another helmet that is not impact-rated for road usage,
(iii) An occupant is present but wears no helmet (occupant does not have anything covering their head),
(iv) An occupant is present and wears an approved helmet.
[0148]
Another key advantage of this system is its ability to differentiate between approved helmets and other types of headgear, such as hats, bicycle helmets, or non-compliant protective equipment. By leveraging advanced deep learning algorithms, the system can accurately identify whether a rider or passenger is wearing an industry-approved helmet that meets safety standards, reducing the risk of improper protection due to incorrect or inadequate headgear.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which inputs are provided and output a result as follows:
Inputs:
a helmet recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images representing categories including
a vehicle occupant properly wearing a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard;
a vehicle occupant improperly wearing a helmet compliant with the predetermined safety standard;
a vehicle occupant wearing a headwear non-compliant with the predetermined safety standard; and
a vehicle occupant not wearing a helmet, and
a helmet monitoring block configured to operate the helmet recognition neural network to process an image from the camera to classify the least one vehicle occupant into one of the categories
Output:
.
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
[0077]
The following part of this disclosure describes in more detail the operation of one exemplary sub-system, namely the helmet detection sub-system of the present invention. The term “helmet” is used herein to describe any head protection device that may be worn on the head of the user and can be visually discerned by its shape using a video or another type of camera. For safety regulation purposes, the driver and passenger shall wear a DOT—or another appropriate government entity-approved helmet. Satisfying a safety standard may include compliance with regulations from DOT, the United Nations Economic Commission on Europe (ECE), or other safety standards.
[0096]
The system of the invention may be pre-trained to detect approved helmets on occupants, as seen in FIGS. 11 through 13 . The computer model or a component thereof may use a pre-trained Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to categorize at least some or each occupant's image into one of the following four categories:
(i) No occupant (there is no occupant detected, while the system of the invention is trained to recognize human shape from head/torso),
(ii) An occupant is present and is wearing a non-approved headwear (e.g. hat, cap, bike helmet, skiing helmet, or another helmet that is not impact-rated for road usage,
(iii) An occupant is present but wears no helmet (occupant does not have anything covering their head),
(iv) An occupant is present and wears an approved helmet.
[0148]
Another key advantage of this system is its ability to differentiate between approved helmets and other types of headgear, such as hats, bicycle helmets, or non-compliant protective equipment. By leveraging advanced deep learning algorithms, the system can accurately identify whether a rider or passenger is wearing an industry-approved helmet that meets safety standards, reducing the risk of improper protection due to incorrect or inadequate headgear.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which inputs are provided and output a result as follows:
Inputs:
a helmet recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images representing categories including
a vehicle occupant properly wearing a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard;
a vehicle occupant improperly wearing a helmet compliant with the predetermined safety standard;
a vehicle occupant wearing a headwear non-compliant with the predetermined safety standard; and
a vehicle occupant not wearing a helmet, and
a helmet monitoring block configured to operate the helmet recognition neural network to process an image from the camera to classify the least one vehicle occupant into one of the categories
Output:
.
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “the vehicle occupant safety detection system further comprising a safety detection module configured to identify vehicle occupants present in the vehicle, determine, for each identified vehicle occupant, compliance with the require safety devices applicable to that vehicle occupant, and generate an occupant-specific safety state for each identified vehicle occupant wherein the safety detection module operates a neural network and a computer model pretrained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of at least one or more safety devices compliant with a predetermined safety standard as mandated for the vehicle”
However, the instant specification disclosure contains only reference to the following required safety devices:
Helmet
Safety belt or harness
Eye protection
See at least: Instant PgPub: ¶¶)
As claimed, the is not limited to the disclosed required safety devices. Thus, the claims encompass implementations materially broader than the instant specification describes.
MPEP § 2161.01 states that "generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed…[f]or example, in LizardTech, the claim was directed to a method of compressing digital images using seamless discrete wavelet transformation ('DWT'). The court found that the claim covered all ways of performing DWT-based compression processes that lead to a seamless DWT because there were no limitations as to how the seamless DWT was to be accomplished. However, the specification provided only one method for creating a seamless DWT, and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic way of creating a seamless array of DWT coefficients. Therefore, the written description requirement was not satisfied in this case because the specification did not provide sufficient evidence that the inventor invented the generic claim. '[t]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor…to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.' LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733."
Similar to LizardTech, the claim limitations cover all safety devices applicable to a vehicle occupant because there are no limitations as to how compliance with predetermined safety standards applicable to safety devices mandated for a vehicle can be accomplished
Specifically, the claim covers compliance determination for all safety devices applicable to a vehicle occupant mandated for a vehicle without providing sufficient evidence that the inventor invented such generic claims. The instant specification fails to cure the claim breadth by disclosing a common compliance determination procedure.
The level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172; Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1083-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682. 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2010) in the context of determining possession of a claimed means of accessing disparate databases). Appellant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description of “.” Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims are dependent from claim , such that claims also include the subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement recited by claim and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim is rejected.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being by (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle occupant safety detection system comprising or having access to a camera () with a field of view configured to observe at least one vehicle occupant, See at least Col 3, Lines 31-44;
the vehicle occupant safety detection system further comprising a helmet determination sub-system See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2),
the helmet determination sub-system comprising a helmet recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images representing categories See at least Col 7, Lines 29-47 “” including
a vehicle occupant properly wearing a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard, See at least Col 8, Lines 52-58; “”; See at least ; “”)
a vehicle occupant improperly wearing a helmet compliant with the predetermined safety standard, See at least Col 8, Lines 52-58; “”; See at least ; “”)
a vehicle occupant wearing a headwear non-compliant with the predetermined safety standard, () See at least ; “”) and
a vehicle occupant not wearing a helmet () () (), and
a helmet monitoring block () configured to operate the helmet recognition neural network to process an image from the camera to classify the least one vehicle occupant into one of the categories, and generate a helmet compliance determination based on the classification. See at least Col 1, Line 66 - Col 2, Line 2 “”; See at least Col 8, Lines 52-58; “”; See at least ; “”)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further configured to produce a binary "safe" or "unsafe" determination and transmit thereof to a Vehicle Safety System. See at least Col 8, Lines 37-58; (Figs. 4-5)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further configured to detect a presence of a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard, if any, on multiple vehicle occupants by (i) dividing the image from the camera into individual sub-images each containing a single vehicle occupant and analyzing each individual sub-image to detect the presence of a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard on the corresponding vehicle occupant, or (ii) by analyzing the image after being pretrained to recognize a presence of multiple vehicle occupants and detecting the presence of a helmet compliant with a predetermined safety standard on each corresponding vehicle occupant. See at least Col 5, Lines 59-64
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein helmets compliant with a predetermined safety standard comprise a half helmet, a full face helmet, or a motocross helmet. See at least Col 5, Lines 59-64, Col 6, Lines 10-22
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
further comprising an eye protection detection sub-system, the eye protection detection sub-system comprising an eye protection recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of an eye protection device compliant with a predetermined safety standard, and an eye protection monitoring block configured to process the image from the camera to operate the eye protection recognition neural network to detect a presence of an eye protection device compliant with a predetermined safety standard, if any, on the at least one vehicle occupant. See at least Col 5, Lines 59-64, Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2) ()
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle occupant safety detection system comprising or having access to a camera () with a field of view configured to observe at least one vehicle occupant to detect either a proper use or an improper use/lack of use of all mandatory safety devices, See at least Col 3, Lines 31-44; Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2);
wherein the vehicle occupant safety detection system further comprising at least one of:
a. a helmet determination sub-system, in turn, comprising a helmet recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of an approve--d helmet, See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2) and a helmet monitoring block configured to operate the helmet recognition neural network to process an image from the camera to detect a presence of an approved helmet, if any, on the at least one vehicle occupant, See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2) (Examiner Notes that only on of option a, b, or c is required)
b. an eye protection detection sub-system, in turn, comprising an eye protection recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of an approved eye protection device, and an eye protection monitoring block configured to process the image from the camera to operate the eye protection recognition neural network to detect a presence of an approved eye protection device, if any, on the at least one vehicle occupant, (Examiner Notes that only on of option a, b, or c is required) and
c. a safety restraint detection sub-system, in turn, comprising a safety restraint recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of an approved safety restraint device, and a safety restraint monitoring block configured to operate the safety restraint recognition neural network to process the image from the camera to detect a presence of an approved safety device, if any, on the at least one vehicle occupant, (Examiner Notes that only on of option a, b, or c is required)
wherein the vehicle occupant safety detection system is further configured to automatically process the at least one image of at least one vehicle occupant to determine vehicle operation as "safe" in case the vehicle occupant properly uses all mandatory safety devices or as "unsafe" in case the vehicle occupant is present in the vehicle and does not use at least one mandatory safety device. See at least Col 8, Lines 37-58; (Figs. 4-5)
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle occupant safety detection system comprising or having access to a camera () with a field of view configured to observe at least one vehicle occupant to detect either a proper use or an improper use/lack of use of all mandatory safety devices, See at least Col 3, Lines 31-44; Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2);
wherein the vehicle occupant safety detection system further comprising a safety detection module configured to detect a presence and proper use of all approved and mandated safety devices by all present vehicle occupants using an image from the camera, See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; See at least Col 5, Lines 59-64; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2)
wherein the safety detection module operates a neural network and a computer model pretrained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of at least one or more approved safety devices as mandated for the vehicle, and See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2)
wherein the vehicle occupant safety detection system is further configured to automatically process the at least one image of at least one vehicle occupant to determine vehicle operation as "safe" in case the vehicle occupant properly uses all mandatory safety devices or as "unsafe" in case the vehicle occupant is present in the vehicle and does not use at least one mandatory safety device. See at least Col 8, Lines 37-58; (Figs. 4-5)
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over as applied above, in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a safety restraint detection sub-system, the safety restraint detection sub-system comprising a safety restraint recognition neural network block previously trained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of safety restraint device compliant with a predetermined safety standard, and a safety restraint monitoring block configured to operate the safety restraint recognition neural network to process the image from the camera to detect a presence of a safety restraint device compliant with a predetermined safety standard, if any, on the at least one vehicle occupant.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to mitigate safety events. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of utilizing in to mitigate safety events. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein safety restraint devices compliant with a predetermined safety standard comprise a safety belt and a safety harness. See at least : ¶¶.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle occupant safety detection system comprising or having access to a camera () with a field of view configured to observe at least one vehicle occupant to detect either a proper use or an improper use/lack of use of all required safety devices applicable to the at least one occupant for operation of the vehicle, See at least Col 3, Lines 31-44; Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2);
the vehicle occupant safety detection system further comprising a safety detection module configured to
identify vehicle occupants present in the vehicle See at least Col 3, Lines 31-44; () () ();
determine, for each identified vehicle occupant, compliance with the required safety devices applicable to that vehicle occupant, and generate an occupant-specific safety state for each identified vehicle occupant See at least Col 8, Lines 52-58; “”; See at least ; “”)
wherein the safety detection module operates a neural network and a computer model pretrained using a labeled database of images showing proper use and improper use/lack of use of at least one or more safety devices compliant with a predetermined safety standard as mandated for the vehicle See at least Col 6, Lines 10-22; (204, 208, 210; Fig 2); See at least Col 8, Lines 52-58; “”; See at least Col 7, Lines 29-47 “; See at least ; “”), and
wherein the vehicle occupant safety detection system is further configured to automatically process the at least one image to generate a plurality of occupant-specific compliance states and aggregate the occupant-specific compliance states into a global "safe" or "unsafe" determination, the global "safe" determination indicating that all identified vehicle occupants properly use all required safety devices applicable to operation of the vehicle, and the global "unsafe" determination indicating that at least one identified vehicle occupant fails to properly use at least one required safety device applicable thereto, See at least Col 8, Lines 37-58; “”; See at least ; “”) ()
fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein, in response to the global "unsafe" determination, the vehicle occupant safety detection system is configured to cause the vehicle to operate in a restricted operating mode and maintain the restricted operating mode until the global "unsafe" determination changes to the global "safe" determination
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of Namely, the technique of employing a vehicle occupant safety detection system configured to cause the vehicle to operate in a restricted operating mode and maintain the restricted operating mode until the global "unsafe" determination changes to the global "safe" determination in response to a global "unsafe" determination in order to mitigate safety events. ¶¶; “If a safety event is classified as particularly dangerous (e.g., beyond a threshold), the operational element of the vehicle altered may cause slowing of the vehicle, or even pulling the vehicle to the side of the road to address the problem”;
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of employing in to mitigate safety events. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the safety device is one of a helmet, an eye protection, or a safety restraint. Babu et al: See at least: Col 6, Lines 10-22; See at least Col 5, Lines 59-64;
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
References Cited
R1: ()
R2: ()
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights