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 Application Number 17/827,917 filed on 05/30/2022.
• Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 06/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of
generating a textual string identifying the event, wherein the assigning comprises mapping the textual string describing the event to the seriousness value within a database table.
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15, 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesla (Model 3 Owner’s Manual, 2020) in view of Sholingar (US20190371171A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Tesla teaches:
A method, comprising: determining, by a vehicle, that a first occupant has exited the vehicle at a first location and has relocated to a second location; (Tesla, page 9, “when you exit and walk away with the phone, doors automatically lock” )
detecting, by the vehicle, an event occur to the vehicle after the first occupant has left the vehicle based on environmental data around the vehicle sensed by an environmental sensor; (Tesla, page 122, “Sentry Mode: When on, Sentry Mode uses the vehicle’s cameras and sensors to monitor its surroundings while the vehicle is locked... If a threat is detected, Sentry Mode triggers the Alert or Alarm state, depending on the severity of the threat.”, and page 9, “when you exit and walk away with the phone, doors automatically lock ”)
Tesla does not explicitly teach, but Sholingar teaches:
assigning a seriousness value to the event based on an events table stored by the vehicle and comprising a plurality of different types of events mapped to a plurality of seriousness values, respectively;( Sholingar, Fig.5 and para[36], “a table 500 in accordance with the invention may assign a safety metric 514 to each potential hazard or obstacle identified in the region of interest or passenger access zone.”, and para[15], “The processor 102 may be operably connected to a memory”)
PNG
media_image1.png
635
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a type of notification to send and a system to send the type of notification based on the seriousness value; sending the type of notification to the determined system; ( Sholingar, para[42], “if the safety metric 514 indicates that there are no hazards outside the vehicle, the actual or potential vehicle occupant may be so informed and the vehicle may enable the occupant to enter or exit the vehicle. Otherwise, the vehicle occupant may be notified prior to entering or exiting the vehicle that one or more hazardous conditions are present…if the occupant is inside the vehicle, a system in accordance with the invention may inform the occupant of the hazard using a projection or other heads-up display inside the vehicle, a text message, an audio notification, …. If a potential vehicle occupant is outside the vehicle, the occupant may be informed of the hazard using a text message, an augmented reality interface or device, a heads-up display visible on an exterior surface of the car”)
and responsive to the seriousness value being above a threshold, directing the vehicle to leave the first location for the second location. ( Sholingar, para[24], “ If the safety metric exceeds a predetermined value, …the vehicle 202 may be automatically or manually repositioned to a better location”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla to include these above teachings from Sholingar in order to include assigning a seriousness value to the event based on an events table stored by the vehicle and comprising a plurality of different types of events mapped to a plurality of seriousness values, respectively; determining a type of notification to send and a system to send the type of notification based on the seriousness value; sending the type of notification to the determined system; and responsive to the seriousness value being above a threshold, directing the vehicle to leave the first location for the second location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improve user experience, as well as improve passenger safety and comfort in a variety of environments and locations.”( Sholingar, Description).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18:
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Tesla further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating an additional notification for the event, wherein the additional notification includes an image and/or a video of the event; and sending the additional notification to the device at the second location. (Tesla, page 144, “When the Alarm state is triggered, the most recent six seconds prior to the security event may be sent to Tesla for temporary backup for approximately 72 hours. You can enable or disable the collection of this video”) Examiner Note: Tesla’s server is corresponding to the device at the second location (the location of Tesla’s server).
Regarding Claim 22;
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tesla does not explicitly teach, but Sholingar teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a notification signal type from among a plurality of different types of notifications based on the seriousness value, and outputting the notification signal type to the system. ( Sholingar, para[42], “if the safety metric 514 indicates that there are no hazards outside the vehicle, the actual or potential vehicle occupant may be so informed and the vehicle may enable the occupant to enter or exit the vehicle. Otherwise, the vehicle occupant may be notified prior to entering or exiting the vehicle that one or more hazardous conditions are present…if the occupant is inside the vehicle, a system in accordance with the invention may inform the occupant of the hazard using a projection or other heads-up display inside the vehicle, a text message, an audio notification, …. If a potential vehicle occupant is outside the vehicle, the occupant may be informed of the hazard using a text message, an augmented reality interface or device, a heads-up display visible on an exterior surface of the car”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla to include these above teachings from Sholingar in order to include determining a notification signal type from among a plurality of different types of notifications based on the seriousness value, and outputting the notification signal type to the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improve user experience, as well as improve passenger safety and comfort in a variety of environments and locations.”( Sholingar, Description).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesla (Model 3 Owner’s Manual, 2020) in view of Sholingar (US20190371171A1), in further view of Tjahjono (US20160200169A1).
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16:
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Tesla teaches:
and responsive to the device not responding to the first notification, sending… notification… (Tesla, page 128, “Tesla mobile app repeatedly starts sending you notification reminding you to check on anything that you have left in Model 3”)
Tesla does not explicitly teach, but Sholingar teaches:
Sending the first type of notification, ( Sholingar, para[42], “the occupant may be informed of the hazard using a text message”)
Sending a different type of notification, ( Sholingar, para[42], “the occupant may be informed of the hazard using … an augmented reality interface or device, a heads-up display visible on an exterior surface of the car”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla to include these above teachings from Sholingar in order to include sending the first type or a different type of notification to the occupant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “ improve user experience, as well as improve passenger safety and comfort in a variety of environments and locations.”( Sholingar, Description).
Tesla does not explicitly teach, but Tjahjono teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting a presence of an unattended occupant; (Tjahjono, para [0030], “the present invention is a method and system which detects the presence of occupant(s) within the automotive vehicle …the present invention is used to prevent children and infants from being left unattended in an automotive vehicle in order to prevent heat injury, i.e. heat stroke”)
in response to the presence of an unattended occupant, monitoring an interior temperature of the vehicle; (Tjahjono, para [0034], “The thermographic camera 12 provides a constant stream of infrared images that are used to determine the temperature within the automotive vehicle”)
in response to the interior temperature exceeding a temperature threshold, sending the first notification to the device; (Tjahjono, para [0041],” The safety temperature range defines a minimum limit and a maximum limit for the temperature within the cabin 18, outside of which the internal environment of the cabin 18 may become hazardous for the occupant(s).”, and claim 1, “wirelessly sending an initial emergency notification to a plurality of contacts through a wireless communication device”)
…to a server at the second location; (Tjahjono, para[33], “wireless data transmission between the microcontroller 2 and the external server”
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla to include these above teachings from Tjahjono in order to include detecting a presence of an unattended occupant; in response to the detecting, monitoring an interior temperature of the vehicle; in response to the interior temperature exceeding a temperature threshold, sending the first notification to the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “prevent children and infants from being left unattended in an automotive vehicle in order to prevent heat injury, i.e. heat stroke”( Tjahjono, Description).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17:
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Tesla does not explicitly teach, but Tjahjono further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring the vehicle to detect the event; (Tjahjono, para [0041],” The safety temperature range defines a minimum limit and a maximum limit for the temperature within the cabin 18, outside of which the internal environment of the cabin 18 may become hazardous for the occupant(s)”, and para [0034], “The thermographic camera 12 provides a constant stream of infrared images that are used to determine the temperature within the automotive vehicle”)
and responsive to the event occurring inside the vehicle, assigning a highest seriousness value. (Tjahjono, para [0041],” A rise in temperature at an abnormally fast pace will result in the cabin's 18 temperature reaching dangerous levels”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify sentry system from Tesla to include these above teachings from Tjahjono in order to include monitoring the vehicle to detect the event; and responsive to the event occurring inside the vehicle, assigning the level of seriousness of the event at a highest level. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “prevent children and infants from being left unattended in an automotive vehicle in order to prevent heat injury, i.e. heat stroke”( Tjahjono, Description).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesla (Model 3 Owner’s Manual, 2020)in view of Sholingar (US20190371171A1), in further view of Koskan (US10497232B1).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19:
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Tesla in view of Sholingar does not explicitly teach, but Koskan further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring at least one of the device or the first occupant at the vehicle; (Koskan, Col.2, lines 3-4, “detecting an occupant existing the vehicle”)
and responsive to not detecting one or more of the device or the first occupant at the vehicle, determining that the device and the first occupant are at the second location. (Koskan, Col.3, lines 30-36, “detecting, by the electronic computing device …, that the vehicular occupant previously inside the vehicle has exited the vehicle”, and Fig.4 and Col.16, lines 5-6, “the vehicle 102 has stopped at a vehicle destination location 402”, and Fig.7 and Col.26, lines 30-34, “As shown in FIG. 7, the second officer 106 vehicular occupant has exited the vehicle 102 and moved from the exit location 506 of FIG. 5 to an updated location 706” )
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla in view of Sholingar to include these above teachings from Koskan in order to monitor at least one of the device or the first occupant at the vehicle; and responsive to not detecting one or more of the device or the first occupant at the vehicle, determining that the device and the first occupant are at the second location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety of occupants.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesla (Model 3 Owner’s Manual, 2020) in view of Sholingar (US20190371171A1), Koskan (US10497232B1) and Glazberg (US20200378778A1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20:
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Tesla in view of Sholingar does not explicitly teach, but Koskan further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: monitoring the vehicle for an occupancy; detecting a presence of the first occupant and a second occupant; (Koskan, Col.2, lines 3-4, “detecting an occupant existing the vehicle”, and Fig.1 and Col.3, lines 63-66, “The first movable vehicle 102 is illustrated with two vehicle occupants including a first officer 104 driver… and a second officer 106 passenger”)
PNG
media_image2.png
613
903
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in response to detection of the presence of the first occupant and the second occupant, determining, by the vehicle, that the second occupant has exited the vehicle at the first location and has relocated to the second location; (Koskan, Col.3, lines 30-36, “detecting, by the electronic computing device …, that the vehicular occupant previously inside the vehicle has exited the vehicle”, and Fig.4 and Col.16, lines 5-6, “the vehicle 102 has stopped at a vehicle destination location 402”, and Fig.7 and Col.26, lines 30-34, “As shown in FIG. 7, the second officer 106 vehicular occupant has exited the vehicle 102 and moved from the exit location 506 of FIG. 5 to an updated location 706” )
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla in view of Sholingar to include these above teachings from Koskan in order to monitor the vehicle for an occupancy; detecting a presence of the first occupant and a second occupant in response to detection of the presence of the first occupant and the second occupant, determining, by the vehicle, that the second occupant has exited the vehicle at the first location and has relocated to the second location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety of occupants.
Tesla in view of Sholingar does not explicitly teach, but Glazberg teaches:
and responsive to the first occupant not responding to the first notification, sending the first notification, by the vehicle, to a device associated with the second occupant (Glazberg, para[0047], “two passengers that are heading to the same location”, and para [0018],” determining that the passenger is asleep ; and in response to said determining that the second passenger is awake”, and para[0022], “sending a notification to the second passenger”, and para [0036], “user devices , such as mobile phones”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla in view of Sholingar to include these above teachings from Glazberg in order to include in responsive to the first occupant not responding to the first notification, sending the first notification, by the vehicle, to a device associated with the second occupant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the transport.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesla (Model 3 Owner’s Manual, 2020) in view of Sholingar (US20190371171A1), further in view of Censo (US 20150346845 A1) and Gorti (US 20100145970 A1).
Regarding Claim 21;
Tesla in view of Sholingar, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Tesla in view of Sholingar does not explicitly teach, but Censo teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a textual string identifying the event, (Censo, para [34], “generate a textual string based on the …recognition analysis”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla in view of Sholingar to include these above teachings from Censo in order to include generating a textual string identifying the event. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the transport.
Tesla in view of Sholingar does not explicitly teach, but Gorti teaches:
wherein the assigning comprises mapping the textual string describing the event to the seriousness value within a database table. (Gorti, para [27], “maps a textual reference string to a set of at least one message object in database ”)
Therefore, 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 sentry system from Tesla in view of Sholingar to include these above teachings from Gorti in order to include wherein the assigning comprises mapping the textual string describing the event to the seriousness value within a database table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the transport.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
103 rejections. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Kai Wang whose telephone number is (571) 270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 Eastern.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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 andhttps://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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667