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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, in part, “applying a first weight a first set of passenger sensor data” in line 3. The phrase should read as “applying a first weight to a first set of passenger sensor data” for grammatical accuracy. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo (United States Patent No. US 10760923 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses a method performed by a processor in a vehicle (see Col. 7, lines 57-63, “controller”), comprising:
receiving passenger sensor data from the vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determining, based on the passenger sensor data from inside the vehicle, a count of number of passengers in the vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determining an occupant-count restricted road segment in an environment of the vehicle (steps S20-S30; see Col. 5, lines 22-50); and
adjusting vehicle navigation of a driving route to enter the occupant-count restricted road segment based on the count (step S60; see Col. 7, lines 29-37; see also Col. 8, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 3, Heo further discloses the passenger sensor data is received from inside the vehicle from one or more interior cameras (see Col. 2, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 4, Heo further discloses determining, based on map data, existence of the occupant-restricted road segment (see Col. 5, lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 5, Heo further discloses the map data comprises offline maps (see Col. 5, lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 7, Heo further discloses adjusting the vehicle navigation comprises displaying an indication to a driver of the vehicle to drive to the occupant-count restricted road segment (see Col. 5, lines 36-41, Col. 7, lines 3-21, and Col. 8, lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 9, Heo further discloses determining, based on the passenger sensor data from the vehicle, the count of number of passengers in the vehicle comprises: identifying one or more passengers in the vehicle based on the passenger sensor data wherein the passenger sensor data indicates a presence of the one or more passengers; and summing the identified passengers in the vehicle to determine the count (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46).
Regarding claim 11, Heo discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors and computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by the processors (see Col. 7, lines 57-63, “controller”), cause the processors to:
receive passenger sensor data from a vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determine, based on the passenger sensor data from inside the vehicle, a count of number of passengers in the vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determine an occupant-count restricted road segment in an environment of the vehicle (steps S20-S30; see Col. 5, lines 22-50); and
adjust vehicle navigation of a driving route to enter the occupant-count restricted road segment based on the count (step S60; see Col. 7, lines 29-37; see also Col. 8, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 12, Heo further discloses to determine, based on the passenger sensor data from the vehicle, the count of number of passengers in the vehicle further causes the processors to: identify one or more passengers in the vehicle based on the passenger sensor data from the vehicle, wherein the passenger sensor data from the vehicle indicate a presence of the one or more passengers; and sum the identified passengers in the vehicle to determine the count (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46).
Regarding claim 13, Heo further discloses wherein the instructions further cause the processors to: determine, based on map data, existence of the occupant-count restricted road segment (see Col. 5, lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 14, Heo further discloses the map data comprises offline maps (see Col. 5, lines 36-51).
Regarding claim 15, Heo further discloses the passenger sensor data is received from inside the vehicle from one or more interior cameras (see Col. 2, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 16, Heo discloses a computer program product, the computer program product being embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprising computer instructions for (see Col. 7, lines 57-63, “controller”):
receiving passenger sensor data from the vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determining, based on the passenger sensor data from inside the vehicle, a count of number of passengers in the vehicle (see Col. 2, lines 26-32 and Col. 6, lines 14-46);
determining an occupant-count restricted road segment in an environment of the vehicle (steps S20-S30; see Col. 5, lines 22-50); and
adjusting vehicle navigation of a driving route to enter the occupant-count restricted road segment based on the count (step S60; see Col. 7, lines 29-37; see also Col. 8, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 17, Heo further discloses the passenger sensor data is received from inside the vehicle from one or more interior cameras (see Col. 2, lines 26-28).
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Lal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2025/0189334 A1) [hereinafter “Lal”].
Regarding claim 2, Heo does not expressly teach transmitting the count, a current location, and a destination to an outside server, wherein the outside server determines navigation data for routing the vehicle, and receiving the navigation data from the outside server based on the count, the current location, and the destination. Instead, Heo teaches such routing is performed via an in-vehicle navigation terminal (see Col. 5, lines 22-51).
Lal also generally teaches a system for automatically navigating a vehicle to an occupant-restricted lane (see Abstract). Lal teaches that the count of occupants, the current vehicle location, and destination is sent to an outside server which determines a navigation route for the vehicle to follow (see [0013]-[0018], [0057]-[0064], and [0131]-[0132]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Heo so as to include transmitting the count, a current location, and a destination to an outside server, wherein the outside server determines navigation data for routing the vehicle, and receiving the navigation data from the outside server based on the count, the current location, and the destination. Instead, Heo teaches such routing is performed via an in-vehicle navigation terminal, in view of Lal, as Lal teaches doing so is known in the art for determining navigation routes in place of performing the navigating within an in-vehicle terminal. As such, the resultant combination would be a simple substitution of a known element for its equivalent that would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Heo does not expressly teach inputting the count into an occupant-count restricted road segment transponder.
Lal teaches the count is sent to a transponder to determine eligibility for entry into an HOV lane (see at least [0024]-[0025] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Heo so as to input the count into an occupant-count restricted road segment transponder, in view of Lal, as Lal teaches doing so allows the driver to be aware of eligibility into HOV lanes and for appropriate tolls to be charged and fees avoided (see [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Heo and Lal, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches transmitting the count, a current location, and a destination to an outside server, wherein the outside server determines navigation data for routing the vehicle, and receiving the navigation data from the outside server based on the count, the current location, and the destination (see [0013]-[0018], [0057]-[0064], and [0131]-[0132] of Lal and the rejection of claim 2 above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Pertsel (United States Patent No. US 12165436 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Heo does not expressly teach adjusting the vehicle navigation comprises self driving the vehicle to the occupant-count restricted road segment.
Pertsel also generally teaches a vehicle processor configured to determine the number of passengers in a vehicle for use in occupant-count restricted lanes (see Abstract). Pertsel teaches once occupant-count restricted lane eligibility is determined, the vehicle is autonomously navigated to enter the lane (see at least Col. 5, lines 5-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Heo to include adjusting the vehicle navigation comprises self driving the vehicle to the occupant-count restricted road segment, in view of Pertsel, as Pertsel teaches this allow autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles to navigate to HOV lanes when eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Khamis et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0047872 A1) [hereinafter “Khamis”].
Regarding claim 10, Heo does not expressly teach determining the count of number of passengers in the vehicle comprises: applying a first weight a first set of passenger sensor data and a second weight to a second set of passenger sensor data; and based on the first weight, the first set of passenger sensor data, the second weight, and the second set of passenger sensor data, determining whether individual seats of the vehicle are occupied with a passenger.
Khamis generally teaches a system for determining vehicle seat occupancy (see Abstract). Khamis teaches that two different sensor modalities are used to determine the occupancy of individual seats, wherein the two sensor modalities are given different weights (see at least [0006]-[0021] and [0070]-[0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Heo to include applying a first weight a first set of passenger sensor data and a second weight to a second set of passenger sensor data, and based on the first weight, the first set of passenger sensor data, the second weight, and the second set of passenger sensor data, determining whether individual seats of the vehicle are occupied with a passenger, in view of Khamis, as Khamis teaches this is an effective manner in determining the occupancy of vehicle seats. As Heo teaches multiple sensors can be used to determine vehicle occupancy (see Col. 2, lines 19-31), no additional components would be required and Heo would benefit from the sensor fusion taught by Khamis.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Hu (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0143033 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Heo teaches determining, based on map data, an existence of the occupant-restricted road segment (see Col. 5, lines 36-51).
Heo does not expressly teach that image data from outside the vehicle is also used to determine the existence of the occupant-count restricted road segment.
Hu generally also teaches a method and system for lane-based navigation (see Abstract). Hu teaches that map data along with external cameras are used to determine the existence of an occupant-count restricted road segment in the environment (see [0021] and [0041]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Heo to use both map data and image data from outside the vehicle to determine the existence of an occupant-count restricted road segment, in view of Hu, as Hu teaches it is known in the art to use both sources of data.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Heo and Hu further teaches the map data comprises offline maps (see Col. 5, lines 36-51 of Heo).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nishibashi et al. (US 2016/0178390 A1) generally teaches:
Disclosed is a navigation device which extracts an entrance and exit section which exists ahead of a vehicle and in which a vehicle is permitted to make a lane change between an HOV lane and a normal lane on the basis of information about the position of the vehicle and map data in which the HOV lane and the normal lane are defined by a single link, extracts a branch point on the HOV lane existing ahead of the vehicle on the basis of the map data and the position information, determines a guidance time for the extracted entrance and exit section, and another guidance time for the branch point, and provides guidance notifying that the vehicle can exit the HOV lane or guidance notifying that the vehicle can enter the HOV lane at the guidance time, or provides guidance on the branch at the other guidance time.
Kaushik et al. (US 2010/0169007 A1) generally teaches:
A method and apparatus for a navigation system is designed to avoid traffic rule violation. The method includes the steps of: evaluating requirements prescribed by local carpool lane regulation for using a carpool lane of a road; determining a number of occupants of a vehicle; determining whether the number of occupants of the vehicle satisfies the requirements; detecting a current location of the vehicle as to which lane the vehicle is running; detecting a lane change action for the carpool lane indicating that the vehicle enters the carpool lane or about to enter the carpool lane; and generating a warning for notifying violation of carpool lane regulation when the lane change action for the carpool lane is detected and the number of occupants fails to satisfy the requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights