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 Office Action is a Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 20, and 22-23 are currently pending and addressed below; claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, 15, 20, and 22 have been amended; and claims 4-6, 11-13, 17-19, and 21 have been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 11/22/2025 and 1/2/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment, Examiner withdraws the previous claim objections; withdraws the previous § 103 rejections; and adds the below § 103 rejections, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that “Moeller does not disclose or suggest detecting speech comprising spoken words that indicate a threat, nor does it analyze speech content to determine that a security threat level exceeds a threshold.” Remarks at p. 8. Examiner agrees with Applicant that Moeller does not teach or suggest these limitations. However, Examiner did not cite to Moeller for the limitation of detecting speech comprising spoken words that indicate a threat. Examiner cited to Kempel for the teaching of detecting a sound of spoken words that indicate a threat (Kempel at ¶ [0024] describing detecting audio sounds of spoken words indicating a threat). Furthermore, there is no recitation in the claims of analyzing speech content to determine that a security threat level exceeds a threshold. As presently written, the speech is detected and then is not used in any other aspect of the invention. Independent claims 1 and 8 expressly recite “based on the image data, identifying a level of security threat posed by the object.” As such, the threat level is entirely based on the image data of the object and not the detected speech. In other words, Applicant is arguing limitations that do not appear in the claims as presently written. Therefore, Applicant arguments are unpersuasive.
Second, Applicant further argues that “Moeller is silent as to any process in which a device associated with the vehicle receives a notification of a security threat and, in turn, sends a message or command directing the vehicle to perform an action in response to the threat.” Remarks at p. 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Moeller teaches a process in which a device associated with the vehicle receives a notification of a security threat at least at ¶ [0073], which states:
Continuing the scenario, the security device 103 analyzes readings from one or more sensors and determines that a second subject 110 has moved within a predetermined range of the vehicle 106. In response to determining that the subject 110 has moved within a predetermined range of the vehicle 106, the security device 103 transmits a first alert to the mobile device 206 of the subject 101. The security device 103 detects that the fuel pump 109 has been removed from the fuel inlet 108 and/or that the fuel cap 107 is closed over the fuel inlet 108. In response to this determination and the subject 110 movement determination, the security device 103 performs additional actions, such as transmitting a second alert to the mobile device 206, activating audio and/or light effects at the vehicle 106, preventing ignition of the vehicle 106, or streaming a video feed from a camera sensor to the mobile device 206.
Moeller further teaches that the mobile device associated with the user has a display that the user inputs commands for the vehicle to perform based on the security threat. Specifically, ¶ [0161] of Moeller states, in relevant part:
In some embodiments, the security application generates and causes the mobile device to render a user interface. The security application, via the user interface, can receive commands for actions to be performed in response to the intrusion event. The user interface can include selectable options for various actions, such as, for example, activating an audible alarm at the vehicle, ignoring the intrusion event, requesting a summary, contacting emergency services, and disabling the vehicle.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the teachings of Moeller are unpersuasive.
Third, Applicant further argues that “De Moura Partika does not teach or suggest the preconditions of speech-based detection of a threat or autonomous response control tied to multiple occurrences of such threats.” Remarks at p. 9. Examiner agrees that De Moura Partika does not teach speech-based threat detection. However, Examiner did not cite to De Moura Partika for detecting a speech-based threat. Examiner cited to De Moura Partika solely for the teaching that using images to detect objects possessed by a person proximate to the exterior of a vehicle was well known in the art (De Moura Partika at Col. 3, ll. 14-20 describing using images to detect violence related objects around the vehicle, including a gun in the hands of an attacker). Examiner cited to Kempel for the teaching of detecting a sound of spoken words that indicate a threat (Kempel at ¶ [0024] describing detecting audio sounds of spoken words indicating a threat). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Fourth, Applicant further argues that “Even if one were to combine Moeller's driver-assistance system with De Moura Partika's interface, the resulting system would merely allow a user to issue a remote command in response to a general vehicle status notification, not an autonomous vehicle determination of a spoken threat or a threshold-based security mode triggering control as featured in the claims.” Remarks at p. 9. As noted above, Examiner did not cite to either Moeller or De Moura Partika for the teaching of speech-based threat detection. Also as described above, Moeller teaches issuing a command in response to a threat detected by an autonomous vehicle that triggers taking control of certain actions of the vehicle (Moeller at ¶¶ [0073], [0161]), and Kempel teaches detecting a sound of spoken words that indicate a threat (Kempel at ¶ [0024] describing detecting audio sounds of spoken words indicating a threat). The combination of Moeller and Kempel teaches issuing a command for an autonomous vehicle to take an action in response to a speech-based threat. However, as noted above, the claims, as presently written, do not recite that any command, control, or action is taken in response to the detected speech, only that such a command and control are exercised upon the threat level of the object detected in the image exceeding a threshold. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Fifth, Applicant further argues that “Kempel does not disclose analyzing spoken threat language or implementing a security mode in which the vehicle autonomously responds.” Remarks at p. 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kempel teaches analyzing spoken threat language at least at ¶ [0024], which states, in relevant part, “[t]hreat Analysis system 116 could parse the audio for sound signatures associated with gunshots, screaming, or other indications of violence or possible duress, or could perform speech recognition to analyzing the verbal content of the speech for one or more threats.” Moeller teaches activating a security mode in which the vehicle autonomously responds (Moeller at ¶¶ [0073], [0161]). The combination of Moeller and Kemper teaches activating a security mode in which the vehicle autonomously responds based on a speech-detected threat. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Sixth, Applicant further argues that O’Brien “fails to teach or suggest the dynamic, iterative loop of security threat detection, bidirectional messaging, and autonomous response. O'Brien's system merely exchanges operational data among vehicles for safety alerts; it does not involve any threshold-triggered or linguistically-detected threat conditions, nor does it provide for autonomous motion of the vehicle.” Remarks at pp. 9-10. Examiner respectfully disagrees. O’Brien teaches autonomously moving the vehicle based on a security threat exceeding a threshold. Specifically, at ¶¶ [0019] – [0028] O’Brien lists the different actions that can be taken in response to a threat, which includes evasive maneuvers.
[0019] As the autonomous vehicle is exposed to various types and degrees of attack, the autonomous vehicles reactions vary based on the type and immediacy of the attack. For example, upon determining a threat exists, the autonomous vehicle may: [0020] do nothing, and continue with the mission while continuing to observe [0021] change flight path but generally continue with the mission [0022] send an alert (i.e., call for help), record images, and transmit log data [0023] secure critical data/systems [0024] disregard outside communications for a period of time [0025] perform evasive maneuvers [0026] switch to an alternate mission [0027] seek sanctuary [0028] land or stop immediately.
Furthermore, O’Brien teaches that there are 3 thresholds at which different actions are taken based on the threat level (See Figure 4 depicting the different threat thresholds; see also ¶¶ [0087] – [0089] describing the three threat thresholds). Specifically, O’Brien teaches that “[w]hen the threat detected is determined to be harmful, or otherwise reaches a next threshold 410, the autonomous vehicle can initiate active counter-measures 412.” O’Brien at ¶ [0096]. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Moeller with O’Brien, Kempel, and/or De Moura Partika is found expressly taught in the references themselves. That is, it would have been obvious to: combine O’Brien with Moeller to provide the vehicle with a reasonable countermeasure when the vehicle is receiving continuous threats (O’Brien et al. at ¶ [0006]); combine Kempel with Moeller to reduce the number of false alarms and better allow true and legitimate threats to be detected and assigned confidence level (Kempel et al. at ¶ [0024]); and combine De Moura Partika with Moeller to detect and alert a user of violent behavior outside the vehicle (De Moura Partika at ¶ [0030]). Therefore, the prior art references themselves prove the express motivation that a person having ordinary skill in the art would use to make the Moeller, O’Brien, Kempel, and/or De Moura Partika combination.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 are unpersuasive for all the reasons set forth above. Applicant has not provided any independent arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, or 22-23. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, or 22-23 are unpatentable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the term “possessed by a person” was previously interpreted as meaning that the object is being held by a person in an Office Action dated 9/16/2024. Examiner is applying that same interpretation to the term in the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite only software per se without any physical or tangible form. Specifically, claim 15 is directed toward a computer-readable medium that is not expressly in a non-tangible form. Paragraph [0032] of the present specification states: “The computer-readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable medium or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” (emphasis added). This language does not limit the computer-readable medium to non-transitory mediums, and could, therefore, include other forms of medium, such as signals.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, transitory-computer readable medium, or signal, is referred to as signal per se. Signal per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.03(II) (“[T]he BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.”).
Claims 16 and 20 depend from claim 15 and do not limit the computer-readable medium to a non-transitory form. Therefore, claims 15 and 20 also do no fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to state that the computer-readable medium is non-transitory.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0161758 to Moeller et al. (previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0322749 to Kempel et al. (previously of record) and U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0191311 to O’Brien et al. (previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Moeller et al. discloses:
A method performed by a vehicle, comprising:
capturing image data of an object, wherein the object is proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing detecting an object proximate the vehicle via sensors, which includes image (¶ [0083));
based on the image data, identifying a level of security threat posed by the object (¶ [0073] describing identifying, by the vehicle, an intruder, or object, being a threat when the movement of the person enters within a predetermined threshold range of the vehicle based on the data received and analyzed by the vehicle);
identifying that the level exceeds a threshold (¶ [0073] object within a threshold distance of the vehicle);
in response to the threshold being exceeded, notifying a device associated with the vehicle of the security threat (¶ [0073] describing notifying the vehicle’s owner of the threat via mobile device); and
receiving a command from the device, wherein the command controls the vehicle to perform an action in response to the security threat (¶ [0161] describing the vehicle receiving commands for actions from the mobile device in response to the intrusion event).
Moeller et al. does not expressly disclose detecting speech comprising spoken words that indicate a threat or autonomously moving the vehicle for a period when the security threat occurs more than once.
O’Brien et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches the action of autonomously moving the vehicle for a period when the security threat occurs more than once (¶¶ [0019] – [0028] describing autonomously moving the vehicle in the area for a period based on a continuous threat; see also Figure 4 depicting the thresholds at which the actions are taken).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate taking the action of moving the vehicle in the area for a period, as taught by O’Brien et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the vehicle with a reasonable countermeasure when the vehicle is receiving continuous threats (O’Brien et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Kempel et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting a sound of spoken words that indicate a threat (¶ [0024] describing detecting audio sounds of spoken words indicating a threat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate detecting spoken words indicating a threat, as taught by Kempel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in reducing the number of false alarms and better allows true and legitimate threats to be detected and assigned confidence level (Kempel et al. at ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., and Kempel et al. render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller et al. further discloses:
in response to detecting the object from the image data, activating a sensor to record data from an area proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing receiving and analyzing, by the vehicle, sensor data from the vehicle environment after detection of the object).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., and Kempel et al. render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller et al. further discloses:
detecting a movement of a person proximate to the vehicle based on the image data (¶ [0073] person moving within a predetermined range of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., and Kempel et al. render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller et al. further discloses:
sending a message to an other vehicle proximate to the vehicle, wherein the message triggers an alarm of the other vehicle (¶¶ [0075], [0076] describing sending a message to a second vehicle that trigger an alarm in the form of audio and/or light effects of the second vehicle).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., and Kempel et al. render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Moeller et al. further discloses:
determining a current geographic location of the vehicle based on sensor data, wherein the identifying the level of security threat further comprises identifying the level of security threat based on a crime rate of the current geographic location (¶ [0124] describing determining that the current location of the vehicle is in a high crime rate location and elevates the security mode).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., and Kempel et al. render obvious all the limitations of claim 1. O’Brien et al. further teaches:
autonomously maneuvering the vehicle to a different location in response to receipt of the command (¶¶ [0019] – [0028] describing autonomously moving the vehicle in the area for a period based on a continuous threat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate taking the action of moving the vehicle to a different location in the area in response to a threat, as taught by O’Brien et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the vehicle with a reasonable countermeasure when the vehicle is receiving continuous threats (O’Brien et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Claims 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Moeller et al. in view of, O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 10,507,793 to De Moura Partika (previously of record).
Regarding claim 8, Moeller et al. discloses:
A vehicle (Figure 1A, vehicle 106), comprising:
a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the processor to (¶ [0079] describing the computer, processor, and memory used to execute the monitoring application):
capture image data of an object, wherein the object is proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing detecting an object proximate the vehicle via sensors, which includes image (¶ [0083));
based on the image data, identifying a level of security threat posed by the object (¶ [0073] describing identifying, by the vehicle, an intruder, or object, being a threat when the movement of the person enters within a predetermined threshold range of the vehicle based on the data received and analyzed by the vehicle);
identify that the level exceeds a threshold (¶ [0073] object within a threshold distance of the vehicle);
in response to the threshold being exceeded, notifying a device associated with the vehicle of the security threat (¶ [0073] describing notifying the vehicle’s owner of the threat via mobile device); and
receive a command from the device, wherein the command controls the vehicle to perform an action in response to the security threat (¶ [0161] describing the vehicle receiving commands for actions from the mobile device in response to the intrusion event).
Moeller et al. does not expressly disclose that the object is possessed by a person, detecting speech comprising spoken words that indicate a threat, or autonomously moving the vehicle for a period when the security threat occurs more than once.
O’Brien et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches the action of autonomously moving the vehicle for a period when the security threat occurs more than once (¶¶ [0019] – [0028] describing autonomously moving the vehicle in the area for a period based on a continuous threat; see also Figure 4 depicting the thresholds at which the actions are taken).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate taking the action of moving the vehicle in the area for a period, as taught by O’Brien et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the vehicle with a reasonable countermeasure when the vehicle is receiving continuous threats (O’Brien et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Kempel et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting a sound of spoken words that indicate a threat (¶ [0024] describing detecting audio sounds of spoken words indicating a threat).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate detecting spoken words indicating a threat, as taught by Kempel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in reducing the number of false alarms and better allows true and legitimate threats to be detected and assigned confidence level (Kempel et al. at ¶ [0024]).
De Moura Partika, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using images to detect objects possessed by a person proximate to the exterior of a vehicle (Col. 3, ll. 14-20 describing using images to detect violence related objects around the vehicle, including a gun in the hands of an attacker).
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 Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate identifying an object possessed by a person via an image as a threat, as taught by De Moura Partika, with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting and alerting a user of violent behavior outside the vehicle (De Moura Partika at ¶ [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and De Moura Partika render obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Moeller et al. further discloses:
in response to detecting the object from the image data, activating a sensor to record data from an area proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing receiving and analyzing, by the vehicle, sensor data from the vehicle environment after detection of the object).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and De Moura Partika render obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Moeller et al. further discloses:
detecting a movement of a person proximate to the vehicle based on the image data (¶ [0073] person moving within a predetermined range of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and De Moura Partika render obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Moeller et al. further discloses:
sending a message to an other vehicle proximate to the vehicle, wherein the message triggers an alarm of the other vehicle (¶¶ [0075], [0076] describing sending a message to a second vehicle that trigger an alarm in the form of audio and/or light effects of the second vehicle).
Claims 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller et al. in view of O’Brien et al. and De Moura Partika.
Regarding claim 15, Moeller et al. discloses:
A computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a vehicle, cause the processor to perform (¶ [0079] describing the computer, processor, and memory used to execute the monitoring application):
capturing image data of an object, wherein the object is proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing detecting an object proximate the vehicle via sensors, which includes image (¶ [0083));
detecting a movement of the person based on the image data (¶ [0075] describing detecting a movement of the person within a predetermined proximity to the vehicle);
based on the image data, identifying a level of security threat posed by the object (¶ [0073] describing identifying, by the vehicle, an intruder, or object, being a threat when the movement of the person enters within a predetermined threshold range of the vehicle based on the data received and analyzed by the vehicle);
identifying that the level exceeds a threshold (¶ [0073] object within a threshold distance of the vehicle);
in response to the threshold being exceeded, notifying a device associated with the vehicle of the security threat (¶ [0073] describing notifying the vehicle’s owner of the threat via mobile device); and
receiving a command from the device, wherein the command controls the vehicle to perform an action in response to the security threat (¶ [0161] describing the vehicle receiving commands for actions from the mobile device in response to the intrusion event).
Moeller et al. does not expressly disclose that the object is possessed by a person or autonomously moving the vehicle when the security threat occurs more than a threshold number of times within a certain time period.
De Moura Partika, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using images to detect objects possessed by a person proximate to the exterior of a vehicle (Col. 3, ll. 14-20 describing using images to detect violence related objects around the vehicle, including a gun in the hands of an attacker).
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 Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate identifying an object possessed by a person via an image as a threat, as taught by De Moura Partika, with a reasonable expectation of success in detecting and alerting a user of violent behavior outside the vehicle (De Moura Partika at ¶ [0030]).
O’Brien et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches the action of autonomously moving the vehicle for a period when the security threat occurs more than once (¶¶ [0019] – [0028] describing autonomously moving the vehicle in the area for a period based on a continuous threat; see also Figure 4 depicting the thresholds at which the actions are taken).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Moeller et al.’s invention to incorporate taking the action of moving the vehicle in the area for a period, as taught by O’Brien et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the vehicle with a reasonable countermeasure when the vehicle is receiving continuous threats (O’Brien et al. at ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and De Moura Partika render obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Moeller et al. further discloses:
in response to detecting the object from the image data, activating a sensor to record data from an area proximate to the vehicle (¶ [0070] describing receiving and analyzing, by the vehicle, sensor data from the vehicle environment after detection of the object).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Moeller et al., O’Brien et al., Kempel et al., and De Moura Partika render obvious all the limitations of claim 15. Moeller et al. further discloses:
sending a message to an other vehicle proximate to the vehicle, wherein the message triggers an alarm of the other vehicle (¶¶ [0075], [0076] describing sending a message to a second vehicle that trigger an alarm in the form of audio and/or light effects of the second vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0272992 to Gage et al. teaches capturing image data of an object proximate to a vehicle, identifying the type of object, assessing a threat level based on the object, and determining whether the threshold threat level is exceeded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/18/26