Member Info for TheLongestShot

There are a variety of reasons why the Magna mirror may not be appropriate.

3 row SUV it won't see the back row.

Trucks, lorries, pabel vans etc where there is no reason for a mirror if there is no rear window

BMW i7 with the TV deployed for the passengers.

BMW, where they have just installed it in the instrument panel across the range.

Trucks where the drivers wear caps or stetson regularly (F-150 in the mid West)

On the next reason is trickier to visualise. A lack of fixed points in the camera field of view (across the model range). That probably needs explaining. The mirror moves, so in order to know where the driver is lookin, it first needs to identify where the mirror is looking. Hopefully, the height of the camera is fixed, but there is horizontal and vertical rotation as well as twist in the mirror. Drivers come in all shapes and sizes. The chair moves and its back rotates. Drivers may not even sit in the center of the chair and may lean sideways. Then we should have the car doors and B pilars, unless it is a convertable! Even if the pillars are there, the position can be different depending the number of doors.

So for the convertible scenario, you need to move the camera, but that would require a whole separate system.

So for BMW I expect we will remain with camera in the instrument cluster so it will be the same for 3 door, 5 door hatchback, coupe and convertible of a given model.

VW don't have the same variety of shapes within a model but they will perhaps load the model detail in firmware for the lower volume models like Eos?

Of course if the OEM wants Qualcomm and you are not SEE, you need to build everything and don't benefit from hardware optimisation. So your NRE costs are higher and your performance will be lower so less chance of winning.

Really, good meet up yesterday.

I won't cover everything as there are some good summaries already.

Qualcomm, we don't win via Qualcomm, but we may win on Qualcomm. So Christiano sells Q direct to the OEM with a list of features and a promise of scalability.

The OEMs then issue RFQ's to T1 for what they want. Perhaps hinting Q is required.

When T1 ask T2 about DMS/OMS we give them a solution that is already running on Q then develop their "custom features" if we dobt already have them in our list of 50+ features.

The cost to SEE is the NRE time so pre-optimised saves money, performance is already assured.

So we won on Qualcomm and may have cost us less, but we only get paid by T1.

Are you starting rumours about 3m now UD?

Nice to see that motor1.com are keen Supercruise spotters too!

You might almost say that the detailed example of how they ensure the driver was engaged was rather simplified in order to avoid patent infringement

Apologies, I added in the word VEHICLE into my paraphrase of the claim. Add a few more noughts on the end.

This could be used in your phone or TV realising that you aren't watching/looking so it turns down the detail (see I can give back a form of foveated rendering) to save power.

It could be air traffic controllers who have zoned out or may fail to spot a potential collision being guided if they need help but leaving them alone if they are actively watching and tracking.

It could be pilots in the air, did the Pilot look and check the air speed, engine power and then visually check that the co-pilot did engage the flaps.

And of course in cars - When indicating to overtake, did the driver glance at the mirror at all, or did she watch the vehicle approaching from behind in detail and time their move carefully so that she could slot into the gap as another vehicle passes - if so then don't use a strong warning unless the wheel moves the car too early. Alternatively, if the glance was too short and they had not previously seen the vehicle in the rear view mirror, then the car should provide more support.

Jump forward a few years, "robots" however you picture them - lets say even a stationary Alexa, your Roomba cleaning the floor or the Delivery robot cart in your street, could all employ this patent. Did the human who is near me, see me coming, are they busy or available to talk to me or to just navigate around me or should I move out of their path. Is BILLIONS big enough?

Seeing Machines have been "Issued" a US patent No 11455810

The final claim says
So what is it for - The final claim says, eye gaze as "attention rays" which are mapped onto a digital representation of the view outside the vehicle and the spread or distribution of attention.

So if you are paying attention (watching and tracking) the objects that the vehicle's computer model of the surroundings think is most relevant, then you are paying attention.

Thanks to Johnchukka for finding and tracking these patents.

And well done to Tim Edwards and John Noble for landing another great patent.

Day to day, these may not get valued in the share price, but a lot of lawyers will be attributing value when it comes to each and every granted and in progress patent application. These are the concrete that builds the strong impenetrable moat around our business, that adds value, based not on the 470k cars that are already built today, or a nominal 50% of vehicles that are built in the a few years time, but on the BILLIONS of cars that will follow

So while they may sound like the other patents do what we do. They are only patenting their difference, not the whole chain of things that we do, and do bloody well.

So eye gaze tracking gets mentioned in a patent for deploying a parachute or a wing or turning a car into a submarine doesn't mean they are competing with us on eye gaze detection, they may even depend on us for that component. All they are doing is preventing us from building that particular format of emergency flying car when you weren't paying attention and drove off a cliff

First, thanks to Johnchucka for his tireless searching and filtering. We would only ever know a small fraction if SEE's secrets if they didn't have to publish them to get the patent.

Time for an analogy.

There are thousands of patents that have an intro and a description that describe a four wheeled vehicle with a steering wheel and pedals. There will be pages about cameras and radar and very obtuse descriptions of computers, memory, and vision systems that detect the path of travel.

They are intended to give an example framework to fit the invention into.

What matters is the claims, these are tortuous, building a list of conditions to identify what is unique. Again it will feel familiar, but at the end of a chain of conditions there will be a "parachute to recover the vehicle safely in the event of driving off a cliff or bridge"

Another separate patent claim may finish with "deployable wing to raise the vehicle into the air in the event of bridge collapse". And another patents claim may be "the airtight vehicle can now drive underwater"

So they may all sound like Bond vehicles, but the key parts of the claim are quite different.

Don't worry, it has been reversed out, looks like a typo, reprinted as 5.4 phew

27-Sep-22 16:24:28 5.40 448,638 Sell* 5.37 5.50 24.23k O
27-Sep-22 16:24:28 4.50 -448,638 Unknown* 5.37 5.50 -20.19k O
27-Sep-22 16:24:28 4.50 448,638 Sell* 5.37 5.50 20.19k O

Having just driven in the States, I would rather they imemented Red +Amber, then you can glance at the lights every couple of seconds and not miss the moment they turn green, alternatively, wait for the honk from behind

I don't expect this to go far.
Using a vehicle monitoring device to let you know when the lights have changed if you are using a device and don't notice.

I seem to remember that that is illegal in the UK whether you are driving or waiting at a red!

Thanks JC, another good find.

Soinsy, is the moat shrinking? Not necessarily. To mix metafors, this is a customer building its defences that are dependent on being on a raft in our moat and moored to a particular curve in the moat. They won't easily transfer to another moat and if they do they will need to rebuild a different customised raft.

Incidentally, I do remember a similar patent, perhaps from Ford about checking that the gaze is following. Where the road goes as it curves or goes up and down hills. But that was to detect alertness. Here it is to deploy steering assistance when the driver isn't paying attention. Just goes to show what you can do with a trusted moat to build upon.

Wow, just like the last Magna patent, the pictures tell the story, download the 320 page pdf from the latter link and scan through the pictures (100+)

Various models of mirror are included. Separate illumination for DMS and OMS with different timings.

Some cheaper models have the camera visible below the mirror, others use alternate layers of SiO and NbO at different thicknesses so that most visible colours are reflected but IR goes through to the camera.

Lots of detail, the LEDs are OSLON black series 940nm

The SoC is Texas Instruments Sitara and it shows a box marked DMS/OMS I can't read the detail but Biometric IDs are showing as inputs and outputs.

Now S2020 and others are keen to see a link to TI and there it is.

The camera is 5 MP 60 FPS RGBIr OmniVision OX05B

So now could someone tell the share price

Interesting idea, just like having a Co-pilot it indicates what you have failed to see but under lining that section of windscreen with illuminated LEDs.
Of course needs to track the eyes and check off all the injects that are relevant as you glance at them.

Of course this only works for forward objects. I've been driving in 8 Lane highways and BLIS with a seat vibrator to indicate left or right has been invaluable, but annoying when reversing and I am aware of the kerb/car, so merging in eye gaze is essential to reduce the number of alerts

Thanks JC,

Now, I am no pilot, but I am fairly sure that the ****pits don't have Food Pedals, good to show how tricky it is to proof read these documents!

Certainly a good fit for Seeing Machines to licence their technology into, as the pilot facing cameras and sleep monitoring systems are a black box in this patent.

This allows the aircraft to monitor when the pilot falls asleep during alloted "controlled rest" so that they are woken before they enter deep sleep, which would result in longer sleep inertia.

Don't worry, Mouser are like Wallmart, just a big reseller.

They don't make stuff, or sell DMS, more of a one stop shop for electronic components. So they will big up anything that consumes electronics so that you see their name and perhaps buy through them. Toyota will not be buying through them, the Tier1s buy all the components direct or from Tier 2s

Sorry guys, I'm pretty off-grid in the SoCal deserts at the moment. Hope to catch up next weekend

Again, the positive signs are here for our partners to all get their own patents around and on top of Seeing Machines