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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/28/2026 are moot because they are directed toward the newly added claim limitations regarding “receiving one or more signals… whether the vehicle is in a confined space”. The newly added claim limitations overcome the previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, 13-20. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment, is made in view of reference US 2016/0053699 (Ozkan).
However applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 2 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants contend that the sensors of Ozkan does not teach a sensor on the vehicle that determines if the vehicle is in a confined space (see pg. 10 of response filed 1/28/2026). The Examiner disagrees because the controller 50 uses a signal strength 90 to determine if the vehicle is inside or outside. Therefore the vehicle is measuring a signal strength (thus the sensor is on the vehicle) to determine if the vehicle is in garage (and thus if the vehicle is a confined space). While the specification discusses different ways to determine if the vehicle is in a confined space, the claim language is broader than the specification and the interpretation in Applicants response.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The claim language “initiating the receiving and analyzing steps…” is unclear because there are multiple receiving/analyzing steps and it is unclear what receiving/analyzing steps are being referred to.
The Examiner notes that there appears to be a typo in line 2 and “key fob sensor” was omitted in the amendments.
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 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.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0126950 (Alderman et al.) in view of US 2016/0053699 (Ozkan).
With respect to claims 1 and 19:
Alderman teaches: A computer-implemented method/ tangible computer-readable device having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, causes the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising, by at least one processor (see at least Fig 1; #112, #115, and #118; and ¶0024-27):
receiving one or more signals from one or more presence sensors in a vehicle (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210, #211, and #215; and ¶0044-46; Discussing that alert system controller #206 receives signals from sensors that detect the presence of a person.);
analyzing the one or more signals from the one or more presence sensors to detect the presence of a person or animal inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 2; #208, #215, and #211; and ¶0044-46; Discussing that the sensors detect the presence of a person or pet in the vehicle.);
receiving one or more signals from one or more environment sensors on the vehicle (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210; and ¶0047; Discussing that the controller #206 is connected to heat sensor #210.);
analyzing the one or more signals from the one or more environment sensors to detect a dangerous environmental condition (see at least Fig 4 and 7; #402; and ¶00557; Discussing determining if there is a critical situation.);
determining that the presence of a person or animal has been detected inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 7; #707; and ¶0076; discussing determining if a child or pet is left in the vehicle.) and a dangerous environmental condition has been detected (see at least Fig 7; #708; and ¶0077; Discussing determining if the temperature inside the cabin breaches a threshold.);
responsive to such determining (see at least Fig 2 and 12; #1100 and #1201-03; and ¶0110), directing the activation of one or more vehicle systems that mitigate the dangerous environmental condition (see at least Fig 2 and 12; #1100 and #1201-03; and ¶0110; Discussing lowering a window or deploying a shade to alleviate a dangerous heat condition);
Alderman does not specifically teach:
receiving one or more signals from one or more sensors on the vehicle and
analyzing such signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space;
wherein the activating the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space.
However Ozkan teaches:
receiving one or more signals from one or more sensors on the vehicle (see at least Fig 14, 15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-42; Discussing determining the distance from monitor #30.) and
analyzing such signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space (see at least Fig 14, 15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-43; Discussing determining if the vehicle is inside or outside a garage.);
wherein the activating the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space (see at least Fig 14,15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-43; Discussing stopping the engine if the vehicle is inside.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Alderman by receiving one or more signals from one or more surroundings sensors on the vehicle; and analyzing the one or more signals from the one or more surroundings sensors to determine whether the vehicle is in an enclosed space, wherein the activating the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space as taught by Ozkan, because doing so would prevent a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide (see at least Ozkan ¶0002). Thus making the system safer.
With respect to claim 2
Alderman does not teaches:
wherein the step of receiving an analyzing signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space incudes receiving one or more signals from one or more surroundings sensors on the vehicle
However Ozkan teaches:
wherein the step of receiving an analyzing signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space (see at least Fig 14,15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-43; Discussing determining if the vehicle is inside or outside a garage.) incudes receiving one or more signals from one or more surroundings sensors on the vehicle (see at least Fig 14, 15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-42; Discussing determining the distance from monitor #30.); and
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Alderman by receiving one or more signals from one or more surroundings sensors on the vehicle; and analyzing the one or more signals from the one or more surroundings sensors to determine whether the vehicle is in an enclosed space, wherein the activating the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space as taught by Ozkan, because doing so would prevent a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide (see at least Ozkan ¶0002). Thus making the system safer.
With respect to claim 3
Alderman teaches:
wherein the one or more presence sensors comprises at least one sensor selected from the group of seat weight sensors, ultrasonic sensors, microwave sensors, infrared sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, sensors detecting a persons or animals entering and exiting the vehicle, microphones, and carbon dioxide sensors (see at least ¶0121 and claim 14).
With respect to claim 5
Alderman teaches:
wherein the one or more environment sensors comprise at least one sensors selected from the group of temperature sensors, carbon monoxide sensors, and toxic or hazardous gas sensors (see at least Fig 2; #210 and #211; and ¶0045-47; Discussing the use of a temperature sensor.).
With respect to claims 7 and 18
Alderman teaches
Wherein the one or more vehicle systems that mitigate the dangerous environmental condition comprises at least one window control system (see at least Fig 11; #1102; and ¶0087, ¶0107, and ¶0110; Discussing opening a window.).
With respect to claim 8
Alderman teaches
responsive to determining that the presence of a person or animal has been detected inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 7; #707; and ¶0076; discussing determining if a child or pet is left in the vehicle.) and a dangerous environmental condition has been detected (see at least Fig 7; #708; and ¶0077; Discussing determining if the temperature inside the cabin breaches a threshold.), sending an alert to one or more predetermined recipients (see at least Fig 2; #113; and ¶0024 and ¶0027-29; Discussing sending a text message).
With respect to claim 9
Alderman teaches:
wherein sending the alert comprises sending a message including the vehicle's location over a wireless communications channel (see at least Fig 2; #113; and ¶0024 and ¶0027-29; Discussing sending a text message).
With respect to claim 13
Alderman teaches:
wherein the step of receiving one or more signals from one or more presence sensors in a vehicle includes periodically receiving the one or more signals from one or more presence sensors in the vehicle (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210, #211, #218, #704-708; and ¶0044-46 and ¶0075-77), and the step of the analyzing the signals includes determining whether the signals change in a particular manner indicating the presence of the person or animal (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210, #211, #218, #704-708; and ¶0044-46 and ¶0075-77; discussing continuously checking for passenger presence).
With respect to claim 14
Alderman teaches:
wherein the step of analyzing one or more signals from one or more environment sensors to detect the dangerous environmental condition further comprises monitoring signals from a toxic gas sensor (see at least Fig 2; #211 and 10045-46) over time to detect any increase in toxic gas inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 2; #211 and 10045-46; Discussing determining if the CO2 in the vehicle is raising. The Examiner notes that in order to determine if the level is raising different measurements at different times would be compared.).
With respect to claim 15
Alderman teaches: A system (see at least Fig 1; #112, #115, and #118; and ¶0024-27), comprising:
at least one processor disposed in a vehicle (see at least Fig 1; #118 and #115; and ¶0025-26) the processor operatively coupled to:
one or more presence sensors (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210, #211, and #218; and ¶0044-46; Discussing that alert system controller #206 receives signals from sensors that detect the presence of a person.);
one or more environment sensors (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210; and ¶0047; Discussing that the controller #206 is connected to heat sensor #210.);
a memory (see at least Fig 1; #118 and #115; and ¶0026; Discussing #118 host a software application #115.); and
at least one processor (see at least Fig 1; #118 and #115; and ¶0025-26) configured to:
receive one or more signals from one or more presence sensors in a vehicle (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210, #211, and #218; and ¶0044-46; Discussing that alert system controller #206 receives signals from sensors that detect the presence of a person.);
analyze the one or more signals from the one or more presence sensors to detect the presence of a person or animal inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 2; #208, #215, and #211; and ¶0044-46; Discussing that the sensors detect the presence of a person or pet in the vehicle.);
receive one or more signals from one or more environment sensors on the vehicle (see at least Fig 2 and 7; #210; and ¶0047; Discussing that the controller #206 is connected to heat sensor #210.);
analyze the one or more signals from the one or more environment sensors to detect a dangerous environmental condition (see at least Fig 4 and 7; #402; and ¶0056; Discussing determining if there is a critical situation.);
determine that both the presence of a person or animal has been detected inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 7; #707; and ¶0076; discussing determining if a child or pet is left in the vehicle.) and a dangerous environmental condition has been detected (see at least Fig 7; #708; and ¶0077; Discussing determining if the temperature inside the cabin breaches a threshold.);
responsive to such determining, directing the activation of one or more vehicle systems that mitigate the dangerous environmental condition (see at least Fig 2 and 12; #1100 and #1201-03; and ¶0110; Discussing lowering a window or deploying a shade to alleviate a dangerous heat condition).
Alderman does not specifically teach:
receive one or more signals from one or more sensors on the vehicle and
analyze such signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space;
wherein the direction to activate the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space.
However Ozkan teaches:
receive one or more signals from one or more sensors on the vehicle (see at least Fig 14, 15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-42; Discussing determining the distance from monitor #30.) and
analyze such signals to determine whether the vehicle is in a confined space (see at least Fig 14, 15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-43; Discussing determining if the vehicle is inside or outside a garage.);
wherein the direction to activate the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space (see at least Fig 14,15, 19, and 20; and #50; and ¶0041-43; Discussing stopping the engine if the vehicle is inside.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the teachings of Alderman by receiving one or more signals from one or more surroundings sensors on the vehicle; and analyzing the one or more signals from the one or more surroundings sensors to determine whether the vehicle is in an enclosed space, wherein the activating the one or more vehicle systems is based on whether the vehicle is determined to be in an enclosed space as taught by Ozkan, because doing so would prevent a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide (see at least Ozkan ¶0002). Thus making the system safer.
With respect to claims 16 and 20
Alderman teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to cause an alert to be sent wirelessly to one or more predetermined recipients (see at least Fig 2; #113; and ¶0024 and ¶0027-29; Discussing sending a text message), responsive to determining that the presence of a person or animal has been detected inside the vehicle (see at least Fig 7; #707; and ¶0076; discussing determining if a child or pet is left in the vehicle.) and a dangerous environmental condition has been detected (see at least Fig 7; #708; and ¶0077; Discussing determining if the temperature inside the cabin breaches a threshold.) the alert comprising a message that includes the vehicle's location (see at least Fig 2; #113 and #118; and ¶0039, ¶0052, and ¶0063; Discussing sending the vehicle location.).
With respect to claim 17
Alderman teaches:
wherein the one or more presence sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group of seat weight sensor, ultrasonic sensors, microwave sensors, infrared sensors, seat belt buckle sensors, sensors detecting persons or animals entering and exiting the vehicle, microphones, and carbon dioxide sensors (see at least ¶0121 and claim 14),
and the one or more environment sensors include at least one sensor selected from the group of temperature sensors (see at least Fig 2; #210; and ¶0047; Discussing the use of a temperature sensor.) carbon monoxide sensor (see at least Fig 2; #211; and ¶0032 and ¶0045-46), and toxic or hazardous gas sensors (see at least Fig 2; #211; and ¶0032 and ¶0045-46).
With respect to claim 21
Alderman teaches:
receiving configuration information through a user interface (see at least Fig 3; #113 and #303; and ¶0053-55).
With respect to claim 22
Alderman teaches:
a user interface configured to receive configuration information for the at least one processor (see at least Fig 3; #113 and #303; and ¶0053-55).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2018/0126950 (Alderman et al.) and US 2016/0053699 (Ozkan) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of US 9845050 (Garza et al.).
Withy respect to claim 10
Alderman teaches:
initiating the receiving and analyzing steps responsive to determining that the vehicle is unattended (see at least Fig 10; #1008-1010; and ¶0101-102; Discussing collecting and analyzing information if the vehicle is unattended.)
the combination of Alderman and Ozkan does not specifically teach:
determining the vehicle is unattended based on signals received from a key fob sensor.
However Garza teaches:
determining the vehicle is unattended based on signals received from a key fob sensor (see at least Fig 11; #1150; and col. 8-9 lines 34-22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the occupant protection system disclosed in Alderman and system for determine whether the vehicle is in an enclosed space disclosed in Ozkan with an occupant protection system using a key FOB as taught in Garza with a reasonable expectation of success, because doing so would allow the system to better determine if the vehicle is unattended (see Garza col. 8-9 lines 34-22).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661