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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2025 has been entered.
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 08/20/2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 08/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri, Liu, Sanjay, and Yamaguchi, and the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri, Liu, Sanjay, Yamaguchi, and Sherony have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hariri, Liu, Sanjay, Yamaguchi, and Mochizuki as detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 is marked as currently amended. A comparison between current claim 6 and claim 6 filed on 01/22/2025 did not show that said claim has been amended. Accordingly, the examiner believes that such designation of the claim is a typographical error and will treat it as “previously presented”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “determine a first average distance from the distances between the user and respective ones of the first group of ultrasonic sensors, determine a second average distance from the distances between the user and respective ones of the second group of ultrasonic sensors, and open the first door when the first average value is smaller than the second average value”. Since the applicant is claiming the same user, it’s not clear to the examiner how can one person be on one side of the vehicle and on the other side at the same time. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as both the first door and the second door are on the same side of the vehicle.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “the distances between the user and respective ones of the first group of ultrasonic sensors” and “the distances between the user and respective ones of the second group of ultrasonic sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hariri et al US 2018/0290627 A1 (hence Hariri) in view of Liu et al US 2021/0250554 A1 (hence Liu), Sanjay et al US 2013/0339156 A1 (hence Sanjay), Yamaguchi et al US 2010/0073153 A1 (hence Yamaguchi), and Mochizuki et al US 2023/0045538 A1 (hence Mochizuki).
In re claims 1, 11, and 20, Hariri discloses a remote access system for a vehicle based on detection of a mobile device (Abstract) and teaches the following:
controlling a door of a vehicle (Abstract),
a plurality of position sensing devices configured to sense an object outside the vehicle ([0018], and [0021])
a first authentication camera configured to: acquire images of the vehicle's surroundings; and perform a user authentication ([0022], and [0064])
a controller configured to: determine a movement direction of the object relative to the vehicle (Fig.4a, and [0021], [0035-0036], and [0062])
activate device located on a side where the object has moved to based on the user authentication ([0023, 0028, 0030, and 0056-0057)
determine a position of a user when the object sensed by the position sensing device is the user ([0057]);
and open a door of the vehicle corresponding to the position of the user (Fig.4b, and [0021], [0035-0036], [0057], and [0062])
determine a first average distance from the distances between the user and respective ones of the first group sensors ([0057])
determine a second average distance from the distances between the user and respective ones of the second group sensors ([0057])
open the first door when the first average value is smaller than the second average value ([0057], Fig.4a, Fig.4b, front door is open because distance 1-5 is smaller than distance 1-7)
However, Hariri doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
acquire consecutive images of the vehicle's surroundings at regular intervals
determine a movement direction of the object based on the consecutive surrounding images
Nevertheless, Liu discloses smart entry for vehicle using image recognition (Abstract) and teaches the following:
acquire consecutive images of the vehicle's surroundings at regular intervals (Abstract and [0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include acquiring images at regular intervals, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to regulate power consumption of a camera in a vehicle (Liu, [0107])
Nevertheless, Sanjay discloses a system for selecting, or targeting, when advertising is to be displayed on a digital display device based on an approaching object and associated viewer ([0001]) and teaches the following:
determine a movement direction of the object based on the consecutive surrounding images ([0027])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include tracking an object over a series of consecutive images captured over fixed intervals of a period of time, as taught by Sanjay, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine direction and speed of direction of the object (Sanjay, [0027])
However, Hariri teaches activating the camera located on a side where the user has moved ([0057]), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
activate the position sensing device located on a side where the user has moved to
Nevertheless, Yamaguchi discloses a smart entry system that includes a portable device and a vehicle-side unit communicating with each other (Abstract and [0003]) and teaches the following:
activate the position sensing device located on a side where the user has moved to ([0080-0082])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include activating one of the touch sensors so that the vehicle doors corresponding to the position of the user becomes an unlock standby state, as taught by Yamaguchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to control opening of the door corresponding to the user position in order to improve a safety of the vehicle (Yamaguchi, [0037]).
However, Hariri teaches cameras and receivers (Fig.1, #30, #32) but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the plurality of position sensing devices comprising: a first group of ultrasonic sensors matched to a first door of the vehicle; and a second group of ultrasonic sensors matched to a second door of the vehicle;
Nevertheless, Mochizuki discloses a control device, control method, and storage medium capable of detecting with higher accuracy whether an object exists in an opening/closing range of a door (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of position sensing devices comprising: a first group of ultrasonic sensors matched to a first door of the vehicle; and a second group of ultrasonic sensors matched to a second door of the vehicle ([0021], [0022], [0026])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include the ultrasonic sensors on the doors, as taught by Mochizuki, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to use said sensors to calculate a distance between a door of a vehicle and an object in proximity to said door (Mochizuki, [0022]).
In re claims 3 and 13, Hariri teaches the following:
wherein the controller is further configured to: extract the object from the surrounding images acquired through the first authentication camera; and determine whether the object corresponds to a pre-stored user image ([0109])
In re claims 4 and 14, Hariri teaches the following:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a gesture of the object based on the consecutive surrounding images; and determine whether the gesture corresponds to a pre-stored pattern ([0034])
In re claims 6, 16, and19, teaches the following:
trying the user authentication based on the surrounding images acquired through a first authentication camera disposed in a front direction of the vehicle (Fig.3, [0022])
a second authentication camera, wherein the second authentication camera is disposed in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the first authentication camera (Fig.3, [0022])
However, Hariri doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
a second authentication camera for retrying the user authentication when the user authentication fails
Nevertheless, Liu discloses smart entry for vehicle using image recognition (Abstract) and teaches the following:
a second authentication camera for retrying the user authentication when the user authentication fails ([0035])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include retrying using authentication using a second camera with a higher resolution, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce total power consumption (by initially employing low-resolution cameras) while maintaining authentication accuracy (via triggered high-resolution cameras) of the user (Liu [0037]).
In re claims 7 and17, Hariri teaches the following:
wherein the second authentication camera is configured to be located on a side of the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to activate the position sensing device positioned on the same side as the second authentication camera performed the user authentication retry (Fig.1, [0022], Fig.3, [0021], and [0023])
In re claim 9, Hariri teaches a position sensing device as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the position sensing device is a side view monitoring camera of the vehicle
Nevertheless, Liu teaches the following:
wherein the position sensing device is a side view monitoring camera of the vehicle ([0034])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Hariri reference to include the cameras for position detection, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve range-based verification and authentication (Liu, Abstract).
In re claim 10, Hariri teaches the following:
wherein the controller is further configured to open a door of the vehicle after performing additional user authentication ([0030]),
using a second authentication camera disposed in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the first authentication camera ([0022])
However, Hariri doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
open a door of the vehicle after performing additional user authentication using a second authentication camera
Nevertheless, Liu teaches the following:
open a door of the vehicle after performing additional user authentication using a second authentication camera ([0033], and [0047-0049], the motivation to combine has been provided above in claim 6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669